Loading...

M. Sathi Devi vs Viswa Hineu Parishad on 7 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
M. Sathi Devi vs Viswa Hineu Parishad on 7 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36296 of 2009(O)


1. M. SATHI DEVI, D/O. LATE GOPALA MENON,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VISWA HINEU PARISHAD, KERALA REG. NO.
                       ...       Respondent

2. REKHA, D/O. KRISHNA PANICKER, AGED

3. ROHINIE, D/O. KRISHNA PANICKER,

4. RESHMI, D/O. KRISHNA PANICKER,

5. M. SREEDEVI, D/O. KRISHNA MENON,

6. SARALADEVI, D/O. GOPALA MENON, AGED

7. RAJALAKSHMI, D/O. GOPALA MENON,

8. SIVASANKARA MENON, D/O. GOPALA MENON,

9. M. NANDAKUMAR MENON, S/O. GOPALA

10. GOPINATHA MENON, S/O. GOPALA MENON

11. SREE BHUVANESWARI TEMPLE REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.C.CHARLES

                For Respondent  :SMT.V.B.SANTHINI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :07/04/2010

 O R D E R
                        P.BHAVADASAN, J.
                       -------------------------
                   W.P (C) No.36296 of 2009
                       --------------------------
                Dated this the 7th April, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to assail Ext.P6

order passed by the court below.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S 327/09 before

the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit is one for declaration

of properties belong to the plaintiff including the temple

property. Later, it was found that there is one more item

of property which caused the petitioner/plaintiff to file an

amendment application. The amendment sought is for

supplying and incorporating the schedule of the property

to the plaint. The court below feels that by allowing the

amendment, it will change the character of suit and

therefore dismissed the petition.

3. The main prayer sought for in the amendment

application is to incorporate one more item of property

in the plaint and for that purpose plaint need to be

W.P (C) No.36296 of 2009

-2-

amended.

4. Ext.P6 order is misconceived and it has been

passed without application of mind The order is clearly

unsustainable in law. It is not possible to understand the

reason given by the court below in the impugned order.

In the result, petition is allowed and Ext.P6 order is

set aside. The court below is directed to take up Exts.P2

and P4 and pass fresh orders thereon, within two months

from the date of re-opening of the courts after summer

vacation, after hearing both sides and referring to records

before it.

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

ma

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.

————————-

M.A.C.A No. of

————————–

Dated this the February/ March, 2010

J U D G M E N T

Basheer,J.

Barkath Ali,J.

A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE

P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
ma

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information